It seems to me that much of made of "what it takes to win in the playoffs" and that the Penguins need to alter their playing style in order to succeed in the post season. If this is true why don't the Penguins create a playing style staring in training camp that continues through the regular season that more closely resembles the playing style necessary to win the cup. I simply don't get why any team, coach or ownership group would tolerate this inconsistency.

Winning is a habit.....it's not something that can be turned on like a light......any adult understands this basic concept. Why would the Pens allow their team to develop a habit of a playing style in the regular season that by definition needs to be altered in order to succeed in the post season...Why?

Because they feel this is the best system to implement, from the NHL down. This is why HCDB was retained. It's not about the system as a whole, it's their refusal to make even the slightest of typical adjustments in the playoffs.

Most sports where there is a cap, and parity all you need is to have a style/system, any style will do, and if you can time things up that you work the kinks out in the regular season and hit your stride (get hot) in the playoff you have a really good chance of winning it all.

BUT ...........

In hockey it is not the only thing. In hockey you have to incorporate more of a physical presence in the playoffs.

This year's Penguins were hot going into the last half of the season, and instead of hitting their stride, they brought in too many old veterans that were set in their ways, and they all, except Murray, struggled to work their kinks out in time for the playoffs. The Penguins were smoking hot till the trade deadline and never got back to the level they were at right before the trade deadline. Sidney Crosby getting a 1 in a million shot to the face didn't help either.

Not to mention our team DESPERATELY needs a more physical presence in front of the net, both on offense and defense. Murray is old and doesn't get a lot of minutes. Matt Niskennen, Paul Martin, Mark Eaton, Kris Letang, and yes, Brooks Orpik do not clear out the front of the net, and all except Orpik are not a physical presence.

And it is too bad that Simon Depres is mentally a skill type defensemen, when he built like a defensive-defenseman cause that is what we need.

Thus the Penguins didn't win it all this year.

1. They were not a cohesive unit come playoff time. A team beats the individual almost every time.

They won plenty, and they won two rounds in the playoffs, albeit one by skin of teeth, playing essentially the same style.

They ganked vs. BOS (oversimplifying) because they needed to get more bodies around Rask and didn't/couldn't. That was the style needed to beat that particular opponent. CHI got around Rask - and got more goals - more in one game that the Pens did in 4.

Still, over the long haul, I'd guess the odds for most success are still in favor of their current style, but they have to adjust when it's needed. That's still why HCDB is a hot topic, and rightfully so.

Agree the lack of physicalness around the net on both sides. That game 1 Krecji goal really pisses me off. And we just don't get enough dirty goals. Not that they need a lot of them, but one a game would be nice.

And generally, if you are playing the pens, which def-pairing are you even marginally worried about? "Oh dang, I hope I don't have to face Martin tonight, I have nightmares about his stick checking. I gotta change my whole game." Now, Martin is really good, but nobody is worried about having a tough night. Until we have 5 d-men that are actually difficult to play against you can't whine too much. You've got the 2 most exciting players in the world - use them that way, party, and hope at least one stays hot through a run every other year or so.

GSdrums87 wrote:Because they feel this is the best system to implement, from the NHL down. This is why HCDB was retained. It's not about the system as a whole, it's their refusal to make even the slightest of typical adjustments in the playoffs.

Blank check statements like "refusal to make even the slightest of adjustments." are so annoying to me. I don't mean to put you on blast, but I see crap like this all the time. Not only is what you're saying patently incorrect, it's so non-specific that it drives me crazy.

Adjustments like what? Hair gel? Suits and ties? Adjustments is such a non-specific term that people use it to try and victimize a head coach that actually made several key adjustments throughout the course of the playoffs.

Rossi had a quote from Letang that I thought was extremely telling. That Letang said, paraphrasing, that the team "didn't need to make adjustments" because what they were doing "was working and the players weren't converting on the scoring chances."

If you want some substance to the argument. How about this:

1. New York Islanders series. - Bylsma adjusts breakout to lessen the prevalence of the stretch pass and altered the breakout so that the Penguins were starting from the defensive circle. - This was entirely in response to the Islanders team speed and ability to jump on the defensemen responsible for getting the puck up ice. - Low puck support in the circle on the breakout garnered the Penguins more speed, time, and space with the puck.

2. Boston Bruins series. - Bylsma adjusts the neutral zone approach to carrying the puck in the face of 2-3 neutral zone trap, or left wing lock. - In the neutral zone, the player that swings along the red line to gain speed "hips up" to the puck carrier for a quick one touch pass that enables the Penguins to a.) get to dumped pucks quicker b.) carry the puck in the zone and put Boston on their heels.

Also, the entire approach to the forcheck changed in Game 3.

So the statement "the coaching staff refuses to make adjustments" is patently incorrect from top to bottom.

All I see are people blaming Bylsma for every single issue the team had. I don't see anyone blaming the players, namely Crosby and Malkin, for their lack of ability to finish the a single scoring chance in that series. I guess shooting the puck off the post, getting stoned by Rask, and missing the net on high quality scoring chances have somehow transformed into the coaches fault.

headh wrote:Winning is a habit.....it's not something that can be turned on like a light......any adult understands this basic concept. Why would the Pens allow their team to develop a habit of a playing style in the regular season that by definition needs to be altered in order to succeed in the post season...Why?

I have seen this habit in Pens teams for decades. When temporarily turned off by great coaches (Badger Bob) or leaders (Lemieux) or the team itself, the team has won Stanley Cups.

Regarding style in the playoffs, it's time to acknowledge:1. For all its talk and regular season officiating style, in the playoffs hooking, clutching, and grabbing is going to be tolerated.2. Opponents see TONS of film and know what styles you favor. The ability to adjust and adapt to the situation is critical to success. 2. After further review, NHL officiating still sucks (by and large).3. Defense wins Stanley Cups

So taking all that into account, how do you think the current Pens stack up?

How boring would hockey (or sports) be if there was a simple blue print that the best roster could follow to ensure they won the Stanley Cup? We wouldn't even need to watch. Uncontrollable fortuities dominate sports. A skate here, a missed call there, a piece of chipped ice frequently determine the outcome. A team can only maximize their chance of winning, which will always be less than 100%. Imagine you put four red balls into a hat with one white ball. You win if you pull a red one, but out comes your hand with the white ball in it. How absurd would a remark that "you need to figure out the right way to pull the balls out to make sure you win next time" be?

That's essentially what I see all over this board. The Pens didn't win so we need to figure out a new way to play. Maybe we could alter our style to increase our chances. But that's not necessarily true despite the reflexive protestations here.

It's possible that Boston was the red ball. I thought we played good enough to win at least 2 of those games. Chicago game looked a lot like us. Thwy played much better than Boston in the 2nd and 3rd but couldn't score. When they did Boston outplayed the Hawks but the Hawks won. Fortuities.

GSdrums87 wrote:Because they feel this is the best system to implement, from the NHL down. This is why HCDB was retained. It's not about the system as a whole, it's their refusal to make even the slightest of typical adjustments in the playoffs.

Blank check statements like "refusal to make even the slightest of adjustments." are so annoying to me. I don't mean to put you on blast, but I see crap like this all the time. Not only is what you're saying patently incorrect, it's so non-specific that it drives me crazy.

Adjustments like what? Hair gel? Suits and ties? Adjustments is such a non-specific term that people use it to try and victimize a head coach that actually made several key adjustments throughout the course of the playoffs.

Rossi had a quote from Letang that I thought was extremely telling. That Letang said, paraphrasing, that the team "didn't need to make adjustments" because what they were doing "was working and the players weren't converting on the scoring chances."

If you want some substance to the argument. How about this:

1. New York Islanders series. - Bylsma adjusts breakout to lessen the prevalence of the stretch pass and altered the breakout so that the Penguins were starting from the defensive circle. - This was entirely in response to the Islanders team speed and ability to jump on the defensemen responsible for getting the puck up ice. - Low puck support in the circle on the breakout garnered the Penguins more speed, time, and space with the puck.

2. Boston Bruins series. - Bylsma adjusts the neutral zone approach to carrying the puck in the face of 2-3 neutral zone trap, or left wing lock. - In the neutral zone, the player that swings along the red line to gain speed "hips up" to the puck carrier for a quick one touch pass that enables the Penguins to a.) get to dumped pucks quicker b.) carry the puck in the zone and put Boston on their heels.

Also, the entire approach to the forcheck changed in Game 3.

So the statement "the coaching staff refuses to make adjustments" is patently incorrect from top to bottom.

All I see are people blaming Bylsma for every single issue the team had. I don't see anyone blaming the players, namely Crosby and Malkin, for their lack of ability to finish the a single scoring chance in that series. I guess shooting the puck off the post, getting stoned by Rask, and missing the net on high quality scoring chances have somehow transformed into the coaches fault.

I guess I'm just frustrated from the lack of conversion in the ECF for us which, to me, seemed to come down to the pitiful Powerplay. I was hoping once in our 15 chances that maybe we'd try Iginla back at the point, or Martin to QB instead of Letang, but they just kept putting the same unit out and it just clearly wasn't clicking. Change the unit, maybe light a spark. Not advocating change just to make a change, but something's gotta give at some point in terms of forcing the same thing over and over to no avail.

I'm no expert, but it seems to me the Blackhawks play a similar "style" to the Pens and are doing just fine with the stretch pass and transition game. Their defense is deeper and better, however. Perhaps someone with more knowledge can offer thoughts.

GSdrums87 wrote:Because they feel this is the best system to implement, from the NHL down. This is why HCDB was retained. It's not about the system as a whole, it's their refusal to make even the slightest of typical adjustments in the playoffs.

Blank check statements like "refusal to make even the slightest of adjustments." are so annoying to me. I don't mean to put you on blast, but I see crap like this all the time. Not only is what you're saying patently incorrect, it's so non-specific that it drives me crazy.

Adjustments like what? Hair gel? Suits and ties? Adjustments is such a non-specific term that people use it to try and victimize a head coach that actually made several key adjustments throughout the course of the playoffs.

Rossi had a quote from Letang that I thought was extremely telling. That Letang said, paraphrasing, that the team "didn't need to make adjustments" because what they were doing "was working and the players weren't converting on the scoring chances."

If you want some substance to the argument. How about this:

1. New York Islanders series. - Bylsma adjusts breakout to lessen the prevalence of the stretch pass and altered the breakout so that the Penguins were starting from the defensive circle. - This was entirely in response to the Islanders team speed and ability to jump on the defensemen responsible for getting the puck up ice. - Low puck support in the circle on the breakout garnered the Penguins more speed, time, and space with the puck.

2. Boston Bruins series. - Bylsma adjusts the neutral zone approach to carrying the puck in the face of 2-3 neutral zone trap, or left wing lock. - In the neutral zone, the player that swings along the red line to gain speed "hips up" to the puck carrier for a quick one touch pass that enables the Penguins to a.) get to dumped pucks quicker b.) carry the puck in the zone and put Boston on their heels.

Also, the entire approach to the forcheck changed in Game 3.

So the statement "the coaching staff refuses to make adjustments" is patently incorrect from top to bottom.

All I see are people blaming Bylsma for every single issue the team had. I don't see anyone blaming the players, namely Crosby and Malkin, for their lack of ability to finish the a single scoring chance in that series. I guess shooting the puck off the post, getting stoned by Rask, and missing the net on high quality scoring chances have somehow transformed into the coaches fault.

I guess I'm just frustrated from the lack of conversion in the ECF for us which, to me, seemed to come down to the pitiful Powerplay. I was hoping once in our 15 chances that maybe we'd try Iginla back at the point, or Martin to QB instead of Letang, but they just kept putting the same unit out and it just clearly wasn't clicking. Change the unit, maybe light a spark. Not advocating change just to make a change, but something's gotta give at some point in terms of forcing the same thing over and over to no avail.

The power-play failed in virtually every aspect of it, and that was definitely cause for concern. I think you mentioned before the lack of traffic in front of Rask. Part of that is the Penguins seemingly outright refusal to get to that area, part of it is when you play against the left-wing lock, you don't have a lot of room to work the middle of the ice.

There are, no question, things Bylsma could have done differently. No question. But the series, for me, wasn't about coaching. It was about the hottest offense in the league going cold at the worst possible time. It hearkened me back to 2010 against Montreal in a way. You play a team that is staunch at the defensive blueline with a hot goaltender. That's what you have to solve for. Bylsma has failed at that twice. I blame the players more this time than I do him.

The Penguins system is complicated. Probably more complicated than any team in the Atlantic Division. From the forcheck, to the defensive approach, they have a lot of things going on all the time. That's great if you're Sidney Crosby. It's not so great if you're Tyler Kennedy. A simpler approach would work wonders I think.

GSdrums87 wrote:Because they feel this is the best system to implement, from the NHL down. This is why HCDB was retained. It's not about the system as a whole, it's their refusal to make even the slightest of typical adjustments in the playoffs.

Blank check statements like "refusal to make even the slightest of adjustments." are so annoying to me. I don't mean to put you on blast, but I see crap like this all the time. Not only is what you're saying patently incorrect, it's so non-specific that it drives me crazy.

Adjustments like what? Hair gel? Suits and ties? Adjustments is such a non-specific term that people use it to try and victimize a head coach that actually made several key adjustments throughout the course of the playoffs.

Rossi had a quote from Letang that I thought was extremely telling. That Letang said, paraphrasing, that the team "didn't need to make adjustments" because what they were doing "was working and the players weren't converting on the scoring chances."

If you want some substance to the argument. How about this:

1. New York Islanders series. - Bylsma adjusts breakout to lessen the prevalence of the stretch pass and altered the breakout so that the Penguins were starting from the defensive circle. - This was entirely in response to the Islanders team speed and ability to jump on the defensemen responsible for getting the puck up ice. - Low puck support in the circle on the breakout garnered the Penguins more speed, time, and space with the puck.

2. Boston Bruins series. - Bylsma adjusts the neutral zone approach to carrying the puck in the face of 2-3 neutral zone trap, or left wing lock. - In the neutral zone, the player that swings along the red line to gain speed "hips up" to the puck carrier for a quick one touch pass that enables the Penguins to a.) get to dumped pucks quicker b.) carry the puck in the zone and put Boston on their heels.

Also, the entire approach to the forcheck changed in Game 3.

So the statement "the coaching staff refuses to make adjustments" is patently incorrect from top to bottom.

All I see are people blaming Bylsma for every single issue the team had. I don't see anyone blaming the players, namely Crosby and Malkin, for their lack of ability to finish the a single scoring chance in that series. I guess shooting the puck off the post, getting stoned by Rask, and missing the net on high quality scoring chances have somehow transformed into the coaches fault.

I guess I'm just frustrated from the lack of conversion in the ECF for us which, to me, seemed to come down to the pitiful Powerplay. I was hoping once in our 15 chances that maybe we'd try Iginla back at the point, or Martin to QB instead of Letang, but they just kept putting the same unit out and it just clearly wasn't clicking. Change the unit, maybe light a spark. Not advocating change just to make a change, but something's gotta give at some point in terms of forcing the same thing over and over to no avail.

The power-play failed in virtually every aspect of it, and that was definitely cause for concern. I think you mentioned before the lack of traffic in front of Rask. Part of that is the Penguins seemingly outright refusal to get to that area, part of it is when you play against the left-wing lock, you don't have a lot of room to work the middle of the ice.

There are, no question, things Bylsma could have done differently. No question. But the series, for me, wasn't about coaching. It was about the hottest offense in the league going cold at the worst possible time. It hearkened me back to 2010 against Montreal in a way. You play a team that is staunch at the defensive blueline with a hot goaltender. That's what you have to solve for. Bylsma has failed at that twice. I blame the players more this time than I do him.

The Penguins system is complicated. Probably more complicated than any team in the Atlantic Division. From the forcheck, to the defensive approach, they have a lot of things going on all the time. That's great if you're Sidney Crosby. It's not so great if you're Tyler Kennedy. A simpler approach would work wonders I think.

The complicated system is probably why all their deadline acquisitions seemingly stopped them dead in their big momentum swing, especially in a shortened season with even less time to adjust. Spending a whole offseason with it would probably make all the difference in the world.

That being said, it's still a system built for top-flight players, and frankly, no team is full of that. But it's understandable that the Pens would love it, considering they have two of the best, so you still wish to cater to that obvious massive strength. I just wonder if there's some way Bylsma can still implement a high-end offensive like he enjoys, but somehow simplify the necessity of those big stretch passes that are easy to solve in a seven game series, and put the rest of the lineup in a system that doesn't just cater to the best of their players. It's great in the regular season, but playoffs is where your depth truly comes into play.

I beat this dead horse regularly but I think our age took us out of this. 13 guys over age 30, the Kings had 1 last year, the Blackhawks have 7 (I'm excluding their back-up goalie as he never sees the ice), and the Bruins have 8 most of which didn't see the ice against the Pens. We were soooo painfully slow and until Shero made us the old-folks home, we were lethal in the regular season. I can't believe I am backing DB here but Ray gave him a bunch of sludge to clog up his fast moving, pressing style and it just killed us. The playoffs are about one word "relentlessness". We just didn't have the horses to play that style. It isn't about hitting people, it is about winning puck battles and sustaining pressure. Every cup is won that way.

Every series is different.pens are a frontrunner; losing game 1 and the long lay off affected their scorers.Game 3 and 4; they played scared; knowing 1 goal is the end. The OT periods is when I saw what could pass for penguin hockey.Game 2; utter failure of team and coaches. they were not good enough to pee away a game and then get back in the series. NYI, game 5; TK and Murray goals put the pens over. Turning point of the 1st series.I am still in shock that Sidney could not figure out to score on rask, get to net with traffic.

In the finals; you see sweeps because of the match up and styles and getting the 1st win. I wouldn't be surprised if hawks won in 4 or five.

RisslingsMissingTeeth wrote:I beat this dead horse regularly but I think our age took us out of this. 13 guys over age 30, the Kings had 1 last year, the Blackhawks have 7 (I'm excluding their back-up goalie as he never sees the ice), and the Bruins have 8 most of which didn't see the ice against the Pens. We were soooo painfully slow and until Shero made us the old-folks home, we were lethal in the regular season. I can't believe I am backing DB here but Ray gave him a bunch of sludge to clog up his fast moving, pressing style and it just killed us. The playoffs are about one word "relentlessness". We just didn't have the horses to play that style. It isn't about hitting people, it is about winning puck battles and sustaining pressure. Every cup is won that way.

Shero and I'm sure DB felt like some grittyness would be a huge benefit going into the playoffs to assist the high-flying offense. If you were looking for gritty play with some scoring touch, Morrow and Iginla were the way to go up front. Who would've thought Murray himself would've scored almost as many goals as the two combined The moves were the right moves and the wrong moves at the same time.

GSdrums87 wrote:Because they feel this is the best system to implement, from the NHL down. This is why HCDB was retained. It's not about the system as a whole, it's their refusal to make even the slightest of typical adjustments in the playoffs.

Blank check statements like "refusal to make even the slightest of adjustments." are so annoying to me. I don't mean to put you on blast, but I see crap like this all the time. Not only is what you're saying patently incorrect, it's so non-specific that it drives me crazy.

Adjustments like what? Hair gel? Suits and ties? Adjustments is such a non-specific term that people use it to try and victimize a head coach that actually made several key adjustments throughout the course of the playoffs.

Rossi had a quote from Letang that I thought was extremely telling. That Letang said, paraphrasing, that the team "didn't need to make adjustments" because what they were doing "was working and the players weren't converting on the scoring chances."

If you want some substance to the argument. How about this:

1. New York Islanders series. - Bylsma adjusts breakout to lessen the prevalence of the stretch pass and altered the breakout so that the Penguins were starting from the defensive circle. - This was entirely in response to the Islanders team speed and ability to jump on the defensemen responsible for getting the puck up ice. - Low puck support in the circle on the breakout garnered the Penguins more speed, time, and space with the puck.

2. Boston Bruins series. - Bylsma adjusts the neutral zone approach to carrying the puck in the face of 2-3 neutral zone trap, or left wing lock. - In the neutral zone, the player that swings along the red line to gain speed "hips up" to the puck carrier for a quick one touch pass that enables the Penguins to a.) get to dumped pucks quicker b.) carry the puck in the zone and put Boston on their heels.

Also, the entire approach to the forcheck changed in Game 3.

So the statement "the coaching staff refuses to make adjustments" is patently incorrect from top to bottom.

All I see are people blaming Bylsma for every single issue the team had. I don't see anyone blaming the players, namely Crosby and Malkin, for their lack of ability to finish the a single scoring chance in that series. I guess shooting the puck off the post, getting stoned by Rask, and missing the net on high quality scoring chances have somehow transformed into the coaches fault.

I guess I'm just frustrated from the lack of conversion in the ECF for us which, to me, seemed to come down to the pitiful Powerplay. I was hoping once in our 15 chances that maybe we'd try Iginla back at the point, or Martin to QB instead of Letang, but they just kept putting the same unit out and it just clearly wasn't clicking. Change the unit, maybe light a spark. Not advocating change just to make a change, but something's gotta give at some point in terms of forcing the same thing over and over to no avail.

GSdrums87 wrote:Because they feel this is the best system to implement, from the NHL down. This is why HCDB was retained. It's not about the system as a whole, it's their refusal to make even the slightest of typical adjustments in the playoffs.

Blank check statements like "refusal to make even the slightest of adjustments." are so annoying to me. I don't mean to put you on blast, but I see crap like this all the time. Not only is what you're saying patently incorrect, it's so non-specific that it drives me crazy.

Adjustments like what? Hair gel? Suits and ties? Adjustments is such a non-specific term that people use it to try and victimize a head coach that actually made several key adjustments throughout the course of the playoffs.

Rossi had a quote from Letang that I thought was extremely telling. That Letang said, paraphrasing, that the team "didn't need to make adjustments" because what they were doing "was working and the players weren't converting on the scoring chances."

If you want some substance to the argument. How about this:

1. New York Islanders series. - Bylsma adjusts breakout to lessen the prevalence of the stretch pass and altered the breakout so that the Penguins were starting from the defensive circle. - This was entirely in response to the Islanders team speed and ability to jump on the defensemen responsible for getting the puck up ice. - Low puck support in the circle on the breakout garnered the Penguins more speed, time, and space with the puck.

2. Boston Bruins series. - Bylsma adjusts the neutral zone approach to carrying the puck in the face of 2-3 neutral zone trap, or left wing lock. - In the neutral zone, the player that swings along the red line to gain speed "hips up" to the puck carrier for a quick one touch pass that enables the Penguins to a.) get to dumped pucks quicker b.) carry the puck in the zone and put Boston on their heels.

Also, the entire approach to the forcheck changed in Game 3.

So the statement "the coaching staff refuses to make adjustments" is patently incorrect from top to bottom.

All I see are people blaming Bylsma for every single issue the team had. I don't see anyone blaming the players, namely Crosby and Malkin, for their lack of ability to finish the a single scoring chance in that series. I guess shooting the puck off the post, getting stoned by Rask, and missing the net on high quality scoring chances have somehow transformed into the coaches fault.

I guess I'm just frustrated from the lack of conversion in the ECF for us which, to me, seemed to come down to the pitiful Powerplay. I was hoping once in our 15 chances that maybe we'd try Iginla back at the point, or Martin to QB instead of Letang, but they just kept putting the same unit out and it just clearly wasn't clicking. Change the unit, maybe light a spark. Not advocating change just to make a change, but something's gotta give at some point in terms of forcing the same thing over and over to no avail.

The Bruins power play was equally as ineffective.

Difference being the Bruins didn't struggle at even strength. They didn't need to struggle; they got that first goal and shut the Pens down. Remember the Islanders series, the PP is what saved them a few times. The Pens NEEDED it to click to at least tie the game up and make the Bruins open up more.

GSdrums87 wrote:Because they feel this is the best system to implement, from the NHL down. This is why HCDB was retained. It's not about the system as a whole, it's their refusal to make even the slightest of typical adjustments in the playoffs.

Blank check statements like "refusal to make even the slightest of adjustments." are so annoying to me. I don't mean to put you on blast, but I see crap like this all the time. Not only is what you're saying patently incorrect, it's so non-specific that it drives me crazy.

Adjustments like what? Hair gel? Suits and ties? Adjustments is such a non-specific term that people use it to try and victimize a head coach that actually made several key adjustments throughout the course of the playoffs.

Rossi had a quote from Letang that I thought was extremely telling. That Letang said, paraphrasing, that the team "didn't need to make adjustments" because what they were doing "was working and the players weren't converting on the scoring chances."

If you want some substance to the argument. How about this:

1. New York Islanders series. - Bylsma adjusts breakout to lessen the prevalence of the stretch pass and altered the breakout so that the Penguins were starting from the defensive circle. - This was entirely in response to the Islanders team speed and ability to jump on the defensemen responsible for getting the puck up ice. - Low puck support in the circle on the breakout garnered the Penguins more speed, time, and space with the puck.

2. Boston Bruins series. - Bylsma adjusts the neutral zone approach to carrying the puck in the face of 2-3 neutral zone trap, or left wing lock. - In the neutral zone, the player that swings along the red line to gain speed "hips up" to the puck carrier for a quick one touch pass that enables the Penguins to a.) get to dumped pucks quicker b.) carry the puck in the zone and put Boston on their heels.

Also, the entire approach to the forcheck changed in Game 3.

So the statement "the coaching staff refuses to make adjustments" is patently incorrect from top to bottom.

All I see are people blaming Bylsma for every single issue the team had. I don't see anyone blaming the players, namely Crosby and Malkin, for their lack of ability to finish the a single scoring chance in that series. I guess shooting the puck off the post, getting stoned by Rask, and missing the net on high quality scoring chances have somehow transformed into the coaches fault.

I guess I'm just frustrated from the lack of conversion in the ECF for us which, to me, seemed to come down to the pitiful Powerplay. I was hoping once in our 15 chances that maybe we'd try Iginla back at the point, or Martin to QB instead of Letang, but they just kept putting the same unit out and it just clearly wasn't clicking. Change the unit, maybe light a spark. Not advocating change just to make a change, but something's gotta give at some point in terms of forcing the same thing over and over to no avail.

The Bruins power play was equally as ineffective.

Difference being the Bruins didn't struggle at even strength. They didn't need to struggle; they got that first goal and shut the Pens down. Remember the Islanders series, the PP is what saved them a few times. The Pens NEEDED it to click to at least tie the game up and make the Bruins open up more.

I think once everyone calms down from the loss, we'll all be able to look at this series and say that we were simply out played by a team that got hot and played lights out. You couple that with some bad bounces and the Cooke misconduct (which, in my opinion, changed the dynamic of Game 1), it was a recipe for disaster for the Penguins. There was only one game, in my mind, that I can say we looked bad, and that was game 2.

It wasn't a lack of "changes" to the system, Boston simply outplayed the Pens. I don't think there are any number of motivational speeches or minor-league call-ups that can fix that.

RisslingsMissingTeeth wrote:What "saved" us against the Isles was the fact that the Isles G could "save" anything. We lose that series if Rask is in net.

Maybe they do, but the fact is it DID convert. Regardless of circumstance and whomever is in net, in both instances they NEED conversions. One series had them, the others didn't. Nabokov was just as capable to make the saves as Rask. Difference is they potted them against Nabby and not that Raskal.

RisslingsMissingTeeth wrote:What "saved" us against the Isles was the fact that the Isles G could "save" anything. We lose that series if Rask is in net.

I don't see how this is relevant at all. They won the series. They were the better team. They won the Cup in Detroit in 2009 and you could argue they only reason they did was because Talbot scored 2 miracle goals and Fleury stood on his head.

Doesn't matter, they still won. Their names are on the cup regardless of whether or not they "should" have won the series.